Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

“(c) the Board shall indicate to the applicant what further actions may be required in light of such a refusal.”,”.

This amendment would insert a new paragraph into the proposed new subsection (37L) of the principal Act. It proposes that in situations where the application for a substitute consent has been refused, the board would also indicate what are the actions consequent on such a refusal.For example, will it relate to a change or removal of a development or a cessation of activity in respect of site usage or a development that is deemed not to be eligible for substitute consent? Basically, what happens next in that instance? It would be appropriate that in situations where there is a refusal of an application for substitute consent, the board would also indicate what are the appropriate actions, whether that be the removal of a development or the cessation of activity in respect of a development, such as in the context of quarries and so forth. After a refusal, what comes next? According to European law, refusal of applications for substitute consent should be the norm, given that substitute consent under the EU signal can only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The very nature of it means grants of substitute consent should be exceptional. It might be expected that it would be the norm for such applications to be refused. In those circumstances, it is important we start sending a signal in respect of what follows a refusal.